Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pour" data-source="post: 6075925" data-attributes="member: 59411">I don't disagree. If they were going to break from what came before, I wholeheartedly believe they should have left the immediate 3e settings behind in order to establish unique, 4e settings in alternating release of some old favorites (I love me some 4e Dark Sun, and would have cherished a 4e Birthright with mass combat and more elaborate stronghold rules). Yes, there would have been a risk of initial release alienation ("Whoa, whoa, new rules AND a new setting!") but look at the alienation from including them. Could it have really been worse? They also had the auto-buy buzz going for them, which would have sold some people, at least, in the early months on setting X. I think X, Y, and Z new settings would have generated excitement and formed a united fan base ready to explore and develop, certainly not all-inclusive amongst D&Ders, but stronger than what exists now. Encounters could have supported these new settings even further, and gotten more people  to play and enjoy what 4e did well. My gosh, it might have even attracted non-4thers from a world standpoint alone, allowed them to experience D&D in a new way. Then WotC might have gone one for one, something new, then something obscure and 2e which would have tickled the nostalgia itch. Instead of offending the loremasters and boring the rest of us with revamps, I think we would have all been happy and still talking about X, Y, and Z original settings. We might even have been anticipating 4.5 instead of this monstrous 5e.But Nentir Vale was as close as we got..........</blockquote>

Verification